i think the fact is the numbers have not been revealed. i think it's fascinating, google and all of you co-sponsors of this lovely institute forum are now asking congress and the foreign intelligence surveillance court to release more data on that information. finally, you understood that your self-interests as corporation aligned with your consumers' privacy interests. congratulations on being late to the party, but good that you got there. and let's look at this information. now, i want to go out on a limb, right? because i've been a little bit watching this. let me fall off the limb. [laughter] i've been watching this whole debate about edward snowden, maybe we can goose the question. i think he did this country a service. i have not said that publicly until this point. i think he did this country a service by starting a debate that was anemic, that was left to government officials where people did not understand fully what was happening. i think regardless of where you come out on it, we have now a vigorous public debate. we have six lawsuits that have

been filed on the nsa program. we have congress holding hearings yesterday finally saying, wait a minute, that's not the law i thought i signed including the author of the bill, mr. sensenbrenner. i find it rather troublesome when i find that that white house press be secretary, mr. carney, goes to such lengths to say he's not a human rights act visits, he's not a dissident, and he's not a whistleblower. well, who made him king of the human rights community, right? i think -- >> [inaudible conversations] >> excuse me, i can't let this stand without giving neil mcbride, who has criminally charged snowden -- >> that's why -- >> -- a chance to respond. >> i have to say, i think it's a bad message for us to send for people who decide to take the law into their own hands they're doing a public service. >> can i think when the system has not worked. we have sued seven times to try to get the surveillance program before a proper court. we were kicked out of court. the clapper v. amnesty

international where the justice department lawyer said it was a cascade of speculation when our client said we think our data has been collected by the government. and since we had no proof we'd been surveilled, we had no standing. it had not been for lack of trying, jeh johnson. >> the courts debate the law. >> and the only way we can get before the court, the only way we have standing before this court is because many snowden leaked the fact that we are clients of verizon business network. guess what? mr. snowden fixed my standing problem. and our democracy, regardless of whether or not you think he broke the law, whether he should be hauled to the fourth circuit, i think our country is better as a result of the revelation. >> that's anarchy. >> that is not anarchy. that is daniel ellsberg -- >> no, completely different from ellsberg. this is a kid who had nothing to do with formulating the policy, totally self-centered and narcissistic. anyway, it's not just the

information about these programs, much of which was in the public domain, it's a whole bunch of other stuff which compromises ongoing investigations. one other point. this guy needs to seek public, whatever it is, asylum from other countries because he would be persecuted here is totally nonsense. a lot of americans support what he did, he should come back and face a fair trial. he's been charged, but he hasn't been convicted. >> private manning's treatment before he was prosecuted by our government was to torture. now, i want to say that i may not agree. we have yet not decided whether or not we will defend mr. snowden. that is yet to be -- we have nothing to do with foreign asylum applications. that he can go find his help elsewhere. but with i will say that i am personally grateful that we are now having the debate we should have had long ago, because i've been in my job 13 years, i started the week before 9/11, and we have tried to have this very debate all throughout, and we've not had the hearings in

congress that we had yesterday, we've not had the six lawsuits that have been filed, we've never had standing up until this moment, and we've never had our european allies -- now, many of you are here in the room from british parliament, i understand -- who now also raise questions about whether or not the government intelligence efforts run afoul of the way we interact with our allies. so i think for whatever it's worth i'm, you know, i think we are better off today, now knowing about the nsa program than we were back in march of this year. and so i just want to say that publicly. >> do you want to weigh in? >> i mean, briefly just to say that the case anthony mentions, of course, is an ongoing case, so i can't talk about that specifically. what i can say very clearly and unambiguously and forcefully is that the justice department does not pursue whistleblowers, that canard has been -- to use raj's phrase, has been used, and to

use just the one example that mike alluded to, my district prosecuted and convicted a former cia official last year, an individual who'd signed nine nondisclosure agreements over the course of his career. he was convicted, he pled guilty, he admitted that he outed the name of a covert agent, that he outed the name of a highly classified program. enwhen he talked to people -- when you talk to people in the intelligence community, what i'm always told is that the most damaging leaks involve outing covert agents and classified programs. the case we prosecuted involved both. the individual, when he made the disclosure, never claimed that he was a whistleblower. that was sort of a self-serving mantle that was -- >> john kerry -- [inaudible] >> and when he was sentenced, the judge who's the judge in the case, the other case you asked about, michael, said to him, you know, you are not a whistleblower. >> we have a patient questioner in the audience here who's had the microphone. go ahead. >> i love a good debate. thank you to the panelists.

i'm dick -- [inaudible] with human rights first, and the theme this morning seems to be about information on what should be kiss closed, what shouldn't, and i wanted to ask you about a slightly different topic which is torture. the senate intelligence committee did a 6,000-page study of torture after after 9/11 that's the most comprehensive -- [inaudible] to be produced to date. they searched through three million documents or 25,000 footnotes, but though it's been adopted by the intelligence committee, it's not yet been voted for declassification. and the reports in the press that the cia's pushing back very hard on that. isn't this something that the american people deserve to know? the senate armed services committee does similar studies for the military's role post-9/11, and that's been made public. but the intelligence community's role has not been made public. >> jeh, you want to take a crack at that? >> i think the answer to the question is, yes. i think that the report that was done by the senate armed services committee is a very

valuable, important report. i personally had a number of takeaways from it vis-a-vis the league community and the department of defense. i think that the legal reviews that were done to authorize the paragraph interrogations -- the particular interrogations at issue were not done in a proper way. i think that the senior lawyer of the department of defense should have been more personally involved in conducting those reviews. and so i think that that study is an important and valuable study, and we ought to declassify as much oz of it as we can. >> i agree. >> any other question over here on this side? and then we'll get to you. >> kevin klein. i was going to ask jane how, how do we insure a robust debate on public policy issues that involve intelligence operations when they're classified within

the certain members of congress? so the oversight committees can't share with the other members of congress. >> well, the tradition has always been that the members of the intelligence committees, which are leadership committees -- you don't get on there unless you're a leader and your party puts you on there -- were trusted with a lot of secrets that weren't shared with others. the reason for that was, and i come back to this, sources and methods have to be protected. >> absolutely. >> and i often joke that congress doesn't leak because we don't have any information. but, actually -- [laughter] some members of congress do. and i was one of those members. should congress, nonetheless, even with perhaps a higher level of information shared only with the intelligence committee conduct robust debates? you bet. and congress -- oops, two minutes -- is capable of doing this. is congress going to do this in the near term? i doubt it. and i think that is -- and that's what bob corker was saying. it's a huge abdication of responsibility. this is a bipartisan rank,

folks. and it will take a bipartisan group, i think starting with the intel committees and those folks seem to get along with each other, pushing this thing. but there should be a debate. somebody suggested maybe we need a national security act of 2014. >> >> yeah. >> think about that. the national security act which is the framework for most of our security apparatus was passed in 1947. no business on the planet could operate with a 1947 business model. we changed part of it in 2004 when we adopted intelligence reform. i was part of that, i'm very proud of what we did. it wasn't perfect, it was implacably opposed by don rumsfeld and the then-chairman of the house armed services committee, so we had to make some compromises. but at least it created a modern, horizontal structure. congress should revisit this issue. congress should be responsible. and maybe out here and, you know, in washington in wonderful

places like the wilson center, i'm totally objective, we ought to start that debate. and anthony romero is part of that debate. we've had lots of programs where he has participated. we need the point of view of the press, we need the folks who have been in and are in our intelligence community, and we need the public perceptions. and the last point i'd make here is security and liberty are not a zero sum game. it's not that you get more of one and less of another. they are either a possum game or a negative sum game, and if you don't like where we are, let's have another attack on america, and we'll shred our fourth amendment, and that would be a catastrophe. >> i agree. >> last word, jeh johnson. >> when it comes to leaks, there really is a big picture point that has to be made. we have a 9/11 or a fort hood or a boston marathon, and everybody in washington asks, what happened? what failed? how can we do better? you're not connecting the dots

enough, you're all stove piped. we've got to do a better job of connecting the dots. so our government sets upon doing a better job connecting the dots, and then you get a manning or a snowedden and people say what happened, it's because you connected too many dots and gave too many people access to information. so the pendulum swings back the other way. the problem is and the reality is and a lot of people probably don't want to hear this, if there is somebody determined to commit a criminal act, if there was a summer intern in my office determined to get into my office, which is a skiff, and snatch from my desktop a top secret document and give it to mick isikoff, he'll probably be able to figure out a way to do that and breakthrough all the barriers that exist. and we don't necessarily need to think about changing national security policy in reaction to one criminal event. i think that that person needs to be dealt with in the criminal justice system. >> and then i'll have to avoid

criminal prosecution by neil. anyway, on that point, apparently, we're out of time. i want to thank our panelists for a great discussion. and to be continued. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> and we will have more from the aspen institute in a moment, but want to tell you about some of the other programs you'll see today on the c-span network. coming up at 10 a.m. eastern, c-span will be live as the center for american progress hosts a discussion on the effectiveness of school district consolidation. the group is releasing a report today on the impact of school size on students. and each night while congress is on recess, we are showing you encore presentations of q&a here on c-span2. today district of columbia police chief kathy lanier.

she talked about how she rose from a ninth grade dropout and pore to become police chief in 2007. that's today at 7 eastern. and then at 8 eastern it's booktv in prime time with kitty kelley from this year's gaithers burg festival. and then from our "after words" program, barbara perry on her book "rose kennedy: the life and times of a political matriarch." and then david nassau on "the patriarch." we've got more coverage of nonfiction books and the book industry every weekend on booktv including "in depth" live every month. a three-hour look at one author's body of work with your questions. over the next few months, september 1st author, columnist and editor at large of breitbart.com, ben shapiro. october 6th, civil rights leader and democratic congressman from

georgia, john lewis. and november 3rd, biographer kitty kelley. along with our schedule, you can also see our programs anytime at booktv.org and get the latest updates throughout the week. follow us on facebook and twitter. tonight on c-span's encore presentation of "first ladies" -- >> campaigning is not allowed. john quincy came -- can't come out and say i would like for you to vote for me, and you can't ask for office directly. you have to kind of use these subtle back channels, and women were a good conduit for that. and so people spread their gossip to ask for favors, and she doesn't always -- she knows that she can't trust these people. she's not naive, and a lot of them are spreading false gossip or false information, they're misleading, they all have their own agendas, and she's aware of the political game that's going on. she's not terribly a fan.

>> the encore presentation of our original series "first ladies" continues tonight at 9 eastern on c-span. >> and a conversation now with pulitzer prize-winning journalist barton getman who broke the nsa surveillance story. he recently moderated a discussion on national intelligence and data collection with two former directors who were involved in the beginning and expansion of the nsa surveillance programs. this discussion from last month is about 50 minutes. [applause] >> i think it's safe to say that when we set this panel some months ago, my fellow panelists did not foresee they'd be sitting up on stage with a guy who had communicated clandestinely with edward snowden and received substantial amount of information from him. and i am, with their knowledge and consent, going to revise and

extend the subject of today's panel to include considerable amount about what we've learned recently about the nsa and what we should think of it. my fellow panelists don't need any introduction. for our purposes today, i'll just mention that ambassador negroponte was the first director of national intelligence. that was during the period of 2005 to 2007 during which there was a transition from the bush administration's want list surveillance programs to fisa-approved surveillance programs, the passage of the protect america act and the beginning of the prison program that i first wrote about two months ago. in "the washington post." admiral blair had the same job in 2009, 2010 which coincided with a substantial period of expansion of prism and the

immediate after math of the passage of the fisa amendments act, in particular section 702. i want to start off, though, admiral, with something related that touches on the advertised summit of the panel -- subject of the possible today. certainly, the intelligence community has an enormous number of accomplishment, and i'm prepared to accept in having read some of the documents, you know, i'm reconfirmed in this that there are a lot of accomplishments, and some of them can't be talked about. nevertheless, while we recently learned that we're connected -- that we're collecting a lot more dots than the public was aware of, the u.s. government was unable to connect the dots sufficiently on the tsarnaev brothers even though they had been brought to the ic's attention in advance. what do you make of that, and what do you see as the implications of what we just heard from ash carter about the

recompartmentallization? >> there are really two aspects of this. one is having the information available so that it can be collectinged, analyzed and turned -- collected, analyzed and turned into action, and the other is the process of bringing it, bringing it together. the places where relevant information is available have been so widespread, so blasted out around it that the old days when you could, if you could break into the ultra program and get the key message, that would make a difference in whether you won or lost that engagement are gone. and we simply have to go so many different places. it turns out that as reality we can gather a lot more than we can turn into, turn into actionable intelligence, and this is a function of a lot of things. we do, however, have to continue to get this information into analysts, we have to get them

machines that will help them deal with the enormous volumes, and then we have to have these good people who can go beyond what machines can do to get it done. that being said, it is possible to, for the intelligence community to do everything perfectly and yet for something bad to happen in the united states. and the measures that the country would have to take in order to prevent those sorts of things from happening, i think, would go far beyond the bounds of the substance abusiveness that we want our -- intrusiveness that we want our government to have in our lives. so we set this boundary about how much information do you want government to do so it can make them safe, and how much do you want to keep respect the civil liberties and privacy of americans. and that is something that we

have to work on and debate, and where it is right now we can stop some things, we can't stop some other things, and that's sort of where we have it. so i think that, i think that we don't want to go any further in terms of gathering more data on americans. i think what we do now we do under laws, and i think we need to get better at using what we do in order to try to fend off these bad actions. >> i'll follow up with you, ambassador, about the recompartmentallization. it sounded as though ash carter was saying a lot of what brought you into the job that was created for you, which was the obligation to share, the tearing down of stovepipes, some of that needs to be rebuilt. >> are yeah, well, i mean, first of all, that's still important, and i think sharing is critical to the integration of information on a rell thyme basis -- realtime basis. and i think i'd have to wait and see what the real damage assessment is of what mr. snowed

den did. i'm not -- snowden did. i'm not sure exactly. obviously, he had access to a lot of information. but i think we should bear in mind here, i mean, it's worth repeating that hindsight is 20/20 vision. you can take just about any event that has occurred and then look at it retrospectively and say why didn't i see that? integrate and improve our intelligence, and i think i feel that nowhere was that better illustrated than on the battlefields of iraq and afghanistan where i think we

really perfected the art of integrating and forward deploying our multiple intelligence capabilities so that we could bear down on targets. and i think what stan mcchrystal accomplished in, basically, dismantling al-qaeda in iraq was a phenomenal accomplishment that was made in part by this integration and reform process. and i think just also by the great advances in technology that have occurred during the past decade. >> let me come back to something that did happen on your watch. 2006 we now know the government with went to the fisa court and said we have a new idea about what section 215 of the patriot act means, that when we are permitted to get business records that are relevant to an authorized investigation, we can go can and do that under a fisa

order in secret. and the new interpretation was that it could get all the records of all telephone calls, international, national and purely local of every american. and store those in a giant database and has been doing so now since 2006. why on earth would you want all that information, and how does that fit with the boundlies that -- the boundaries that the american people would expect in terms of privacy? >> okay. so that's under debate now as to whether we've gone too far in terms of storing and holding on to that information for an unlimited period of time. and maybe congress will revisit that, i don't know. but why would we do it? you just asked me, you asked us about the boston marathon. one of the reasons you would do it is you have all that data, and then you detain the tsarnaev brothers and find out the phone numbers that they've been in touch with in chechnya or

kaszikstan and bounce them against these numbers that you have on file, and maybe you'll find other people who have been calling those same numbers in that database. but it's not -- and we've got to emphasize this -- it's not monitoring the content of americans' conversations. never has been, never will be. you can only do that if you've got a warrant from a judge. >> well, we'll come back to content in a minute. but why couldn't you having received a tip about the tsarnaev brothers said then to the telephone companies and isps and so on, let's have your records, let's have the metadata on those guys, and if we want a contact chain, you still can do the same thing. why collect at all? >> i answer that? because i was involved into the follow-on when i was there. we would have preferred to have done that. we went to the information companies and said we would like to be able to come to you with a

request based on probable cause and find out if this number's talked to any international numbers. and the telecommunications companies said you want us to store all of that data for all of that time in a format that you can quickly access? we said, yeah, that's what we want. that's what we need. and the answer said, no, these are billing record, we just keep them for the time we need them. so -- and then we said, well, can we pay you to do that? no, no, we can't do that. so there was a lot of mechanical, there was a lot of mechanical -- >> yeah, but if you had compelled them to hand over all the records on a daily basis -- >> that they had not destroyed. >> -- why can't the fisa court compel them to -- how long do you need them? >> a lot longer than 18 months. >> yeah, i think that's the whole point. once you pick somebody up who's been involved in some untoward act and has been communicating with parts of the world which

might have originated this activity, you then want to be able to go back and find out if those numbers in chechnya or wherever, waziristan, have been calling, you know, other people here in the united states. now, what's a reasonable period of time? maybe that's the debate they're going to have in the congress. i don't know. you would limit your ability to research this issue if you set a fixed period of time after which you were no longer able to keep those records. but it's not going to be for any other purpose. >> yeah. and here's a fact, the number of times those records were accessed in 2012, take a guess. i'll give you multiple choice, bart. 10, 250, 10,000, 5 million. >> under 300 according to the administration, however, let's talk about what that means. we just heard from chris english yesterday in testimony on capitol hill to a very skeptical house committee that contact

chaining on those numbers when you pull those numbers is down to two or three hops. so there's a well deserved expression in newsrooms there's a danger in a reporter doing math, but let me give it a try. let's suppose, and i think this is fairly conservative, the median number of unique contacts for people making phone calls is 100 over the course of the year. three hops means 100 times 100 times 100 nor a potential -- [inaudible] which happens to be approximately the population of the united states. we've all heard about six agrees of accept -- six degrees of separation. three hops goes very far. so when they say they've only pulled 300, they're drawing an associational graph of at least tens of millions assuming a fair amount of overlap, but certainly probably hundreds of millions of people. >> right, right. and it's based on trying to understand the things that that person has been identified, the

probable cause as being a threat to the united states has done that we ought to know about. so it's based on, it's not -- let me, let me finish. >> you're prepared to justify this, but with i want to talk about the honesty, the straightforwardness of the public debate. if you say 300, i mean, for example, the fbi was giving out only when mandated to do so the number of times it used section 215 over a period of years. so in 2009 when this program was in full swing, it said we've only submitted 21 fisa section 215 orders, we're using it very sparingly. now, it turns out that with three of those orders you can get something on the order of one trillion telephone records. which -- >> let me interrupt you. are we having a hypothetical discussion here or a real one? i mean, even if that's a hypothetical possibility, you know, ten to the power of whatever, five, that's not -- yeah, it's just math.

it's not what's actually happening. >> well, it is what's actually happening. they're doing contact chaining to two or three hops, so it could be as few as three billion records that are accessed when you go after 300 targets, but it's a large number, a much larger number than they're prepared to talk about. it sounds intrusive. >> well, let me come at it another way, bart. i would be, i would be more enraged if i could have found a story in which the activities of the nsa had actually caused inconvenience, damage, harm to an american. now, i have, i have not seen that story yet. i have not seen a person who was wrongfully identified to be a terrorist, was thrown in jail, given the fifth degree and so on. this is not -- there's been more inconvenience and damage to americans by the no-fly list and by taking off your shoes in an airport than there's been by this program which is very

precisely pointed towards finding people who pose real threats to the united states, see who they're talking to, follow them up under court supervision in order to identify threats. i mean, all of this stuff is potential, you know, we don't trust the government having this information stuff. it's not what real harm caused to real people by these activities which are causing real good. ..

>> how could anyone possibly bring an action which would discover that they have been disadvantaged in some way by this program? and i'll save the second question. >> if an american came forward and said that i all of a sudden lost my job, i was thrown in jail, i was questioned for 24 hours by fbi agents, and i have no reason why this came on. i think it's because i came up to stay going in this search and i want to know about it. i think in this great country of ours with great reporters like you, this would have come out. >> you know, the are a lot of people lose a lot of jobs, and a lot of people who are on the no-fly list or stop in again at the border and all kinds of things. if someone tells me as reporter i didn't know because i've been surveilled by a secret secret

program by the nsa, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. the supreme court specifically in the clapper case said you have no standing to find out about this unless you can already demonstrate that you weryou arethe victim of it. in fact, there is not a recourse that allows me to find out if i suffered any of these, whether this is the cause of it. >> come on back on the you reporters, when you have a sniff that something is not right, you pursue it and you get people to talk. [applause] >> i'm not exactly sure how to take that applause. [laughter] >> you are part of, you know, all that we put on this thing. i just, it's a very careful program, in my observation. if there's thing that is

tattooed on the heads of people who go to work and intelligence business is we do not spy on americans unless we do it in a court ordered legal way. and my experience on the inside is that the men and women in the intelligence community take that very sagely. they check themselves every step of the way and they are not rummaging around in trillions of records to try to see if they can find something interesting. they are pursuing specific leads in order to find those were connected to known threats to the united states, to see if they do and post a threat. and i think the program has done well. >> [inaudible] maybe the germane question i get asked you, ambassador, besides in issues of specific arm, because i mean, in any kind of surveillance program, some say it's a stanford imaging it was a

problem is that someone is talking their ex-wife or something that is clearly in the program. can we trust, can the american public trust very, very powerful institutions to protect themselves? we entrust an enormous amount of power to these institutions. is it enough to say that they're going to watch themselves? >> it's not just been watching themselves. when keith alexander, who was the director of nsa, he took me to visit the floor of these operations and all of that. it's not only the people who are monitoring the situation. it's the fbi is there, lawyers are there. there are many safeguards. the definition of what constitutes an american person, this congressional oversight, there's an inspector general. there's all kinds of safeguards

built into this. and i think we come back, i remember george bush when he talked about this program when it was first revealed by "the new york times." he said, well, when al qaeda and call somebody in the united states, i want to know who they're calling. that's kind of the underlying philosophy of this program, and i think it's the purpose. we're talking, it tends to spill over into people thinking, well, maybe we are monitoring their actual content of the conversation and we're not. it's medicaid, records, effectively the outside of the envelope that is put in your mailbox. it's that information that is on the envelope. and the date stamp and the postmark. >> would you have people believe that metadata have no significant privacies? i would rather if i had a choice, i hope not have either of these choices, of having

every phone conversation i have for 30 days listening to them which, of course, is impractical to have a large number of people doing that, or all my metadata collected for 30 days? i would much rather -- >> collected by proctor and gamble oracle victoria beckham corporation, then i would be worried. and i think sometimes we don't really think about who is really, what is the real privacy problem in this country? and i'm not so sure it's with your federal government. i think it may be more without this data is used in the private sector for marketing and other kinds of purposes. my metadata information available for people who want to target me for their sales pitches and anything else. marketing strategies and so forth. that's not what this is being used for. they could care less.

>> let me say, seriously, that i believe that we, those of us who were senior officials in the intelligence community, and so on, should have done a much better job of explaining the general principle of these programs without going into titillating individual cases, which do nothing but help our adversaries. it's time to pay me now or pay me later that when something happens and then you're operating from a defense of, thing but we are okay, you know, trust us. if we had explained this in general terms, and i think they are fully explainable while maintaining security of the specific things that have to be secret i think we would be in a better off case. acid is we are whipsawed by

revelations into sort of grudgingly putting out pieces of it that make it as if we have lots more to hide. i strongly advocate much more proactive intelligence structure. what we're trying to do in the united states is unprecedented. within a democracy with all the openness, to conduct an espionage intelligence operation which inherently requires quite a degree of secrecy. and yet maintains all of what we treasure about our democracy. and i think we're to recognize that and be a lot more forthcoming to take the history of intelligence operations, while protecting the secrets. so to that extent, i wish we had been able to we've been sitting there with people like you for five years instead of waiting until snowden is a bunch of information, some of which is true, some of which is incorrect, almost all of which is self-serving. then you drag it out a piece at a time. i think we did a much better

while maintaining the secrets. the nsa's job is to try to listen in on conversations to discover threats to the united states. what a secret, you know. that is their job. that's what they get paid for. they have to go into an exploding area of information technology in order to be able to do that job. therefore, they need to talk to the companies that do this. what a surprise, you know? they have to make arrangements with other governments in order to have access. what -- i mean, all of this stuff we out to be talking about in general terms, while not saying all, by the way, it's the fourth on this transatlantic cable that is the one that we are really trying to get. >> i don't think that is what getting people -- are you prepared to say this be different from what you bomb administered and sang, presumably yesterday, the general counsel was asked yesterday at a house hearing,

did you intend, did you think you could keep secrets indefinitely that you're collecting from all americans? and he said, well, we tried. are you prepared that that was a mistake, that there should've been a debate at the time that you collectively decided that the law allowed you to collect all the records in the day, a substantial amount of content, and not all of it with fisa orders. we'll get to that. should that have been a public debate before you started doing this because i would've been very careful in the wording of it. i think you're mixing in the word collect. i think the proper word here is stored in order to be able to access or when permission is granted, and using those terms, i would've been able, yes, i think -- >> it's a term of art that i

think is undercutting the case. if you could actually go once a day to three phone companies and have substantially all cell phone records and receipts in your hand a set of dvds, all the records of the previous day and put them in a tank somewhere and say that's not collection, you are not speaking english as most people understand it. >> i do say you're completely speaking english that most people understand that there are things you keep that you have certain procedures which you can then get into. if you collect something, you've got to click something, going in and using the technical means you have in order to gather information that people think is private and that you don't have. that's collection. storing under court order is an entirely different thing. i think we can openly talk about the what the government has access to, the conditions under

which it is stored. the conditions under which it can then be accessed. that ought to be talked about publicly. >> are you saying that if you frame it right, they should have said we are ingesting but not acquiring, all these records. this is why we think it's important. these are the safeguards. we're not going to get into all the details, this is the big picture can we think we should and let the public debate that? >> i would not use words like ingesting but i would say, setting up the system so that you can interrogate these records when you have probable cause over so many years. and i would say if that doesn't hold up if congress doesn't support it, if the president doesn't authorize the we don't do it. if they do which the congress did, without the public debate, much, on this and are not pushed over and they did authorize it,

i think it's correct. >> let me come back to you, ambassador. it's clearly your view, you in the two administration of two parties that these programs are funded their natural, understandable that it's only a misunderstanding that would lead people to be alarmed by them. are you concerned about this sort of quite substantial wage between that point of view and what appears to be kind of a growing amount of shock in public opinion? and if you take yesterday's hearing to be representative, a substantial hundred and members of congress meeting on the committees that they had no idea that you're interpreting your authorities this way. isn't a problem that the public is so out of sync with what you think is natural and normal and acceptable? >> well, that's the way the situation looks now.

i think the admiral was making the point that this is legal, it was under a court order, is being carried out under relevant legislation. if congress wants to change the legislation, they can change. may be the only one of the outcomes. i'm not shocked. it just seems me this is a very natural part of american politics. and so practices may in some way change come and that's not going to particularly disturbing either. after all, signals intelligence is very important, but it's not the only intelligence collection methodology that we've got. there's human intelligence, there's geospatial. intelligence is a very broad and complex business. to come back to the topic of the original topic of our meeting -- [applause] >> i think we're much better off in terms of the way we integrate

that information. i think technology has been our friend. racing -- that we've been involved in. so think we are very well positioned to deal with collecting and analyzing information with regard to threats that we might face in the future. will the threats change? certainly, and there will be discussion of it here on a panel later on today. but i think we have been favorable against the set of threats that we've been confronting during these past years. and i think the intel community is in very good shape. at the moment. now, all of us worry about these funding issues, and when you hear about sequester, furloughing people whose jobs are critical to our national security, that's a source of great concern. and i was thinking about it, reflecting on what general welsh was saying yesterday that the

size of the chinese air force come and recalling my own tour of duty and u.s. embassy in vietnam from 1964-68. when i left saigon in januar january 1968, the united states at 520,000 troops in the, alone. that's the size of the entire united states army today. and our proportion, the proportion of money being spent for defense and intelligence in our overall budget as a proportion of the national budget has declined substantially since the end of world war ii, the cold war and so forth. so i get worried when the cedar thinking that we will be able to squeeze water out of a rock by doing things smarter and with less money. i think we have cut back to the bare bones, the size of our american forces, the amount of money we are devoting to national security. if we want to continue to play the kind of role that ashton carter was describing towards the very end, being one of the

referees out in the east asia pacific region with rising countries like china and india, we are not going to be able to do it with this kind of sequester minded approach to national security. we've got to get back to some kind of approach to our budget and our national security that nears the responsibilities that we say we've got. [applause] >> and if i could just comment on your point, about the average on what we're doing to i've been to enough rodeos to think that i've just about got it right when incident happened and i see outrage that we did not, we are not aggressive enough in connecting the dots and preventing it from happen. i know that six months later to be outraged that we are collecting too much information, connecting to many dots. you kind of steer down that path. i think would be better off as i said staring down that path with more knowledge, both to those

audiences that care, and follow it closely, and to the general public, ma if we made it clear that middle-class we're striking among resource from a civil their privacy and getting a job done was being balance every day and being done in a fairly straight fashion by patriotic americans. >> one more now, and open to the fore so get your questions ready. you are not lawyers, and but you got a lot of lawyers talking to you over a lot of years. and one of the points being made generally on the panel also is these programs are legal and, therefore, their fine. it's not clear to me that we know that. it's clear that they've been approved at the fisa court and the fisa court is probably constituted court. but every effort of outsiders to bring this to the court of general jurisdiction has the law

under statute or under constitutional principles, has been strongly opposed i both recent administrations. when the obama administration succeeded in getting the clap the case thrown out for lack of standing, it said the plan has no evidence that there is large-scale collection or dragnet surveillance or anything to do with her temptation could possibly been selected. that is absolutely true, but it doesn't look so good in retrospect. why not allow any of the 18 new lawsuits, including one by the electronic privacy information center, whose director isn't here, say we want to test the lawfulness of a claim that all american record could possibly be relevant to an authorized investigation. why a post that? why not let the supreme court make a decision on that? >> well, the supreme court has ruled, has it not, that business

records of companies are not fourth amendment protected information, write? the pieces of this have gotten into the outside court. but what i would say is that when you get the operations like intelligence operations like military operations in which you require a degree of secrecy to be effective for the larger job, you come up with alternative procedures to what we apply to other forms in which classification is not important, and you bring good people, set up adversarial circumstances. you use all the principles that we use and completely open issues, but you have to do it within the close up bubble in order to be effecte effective by expenses we do that very robustly with any. if you came in as a director of

communications of the office of, odni community college. that would be the same bart gellman who was nasty and suspicious and concerned about -- [laughter] -- things, and you would be -- >> that's on my business card. [laughter] >> so we replicate the procedures that america follows are popularizing stuff by legislation, setting decisions by court, supervising it by inspector general's. but it has to be done in a secret way in order that enemies don't find out about and, therefore, you can abate it spent and don't exclude the possibility of new legislation. if congress wants to fix it they got oversight capabilities to hear all this material, classified, in classified form, and then decide whether they think they need to tweak the law. they might do that. you would prefer to see i suspect and open debate before

the supreme court. you can do with congressional leaders as well, right? address some of the issues and concerns you have raised. >> i guess the each other on function. one determines what the legislation to be. one determines what the law, what is lawful and unconstitutional. my preference would be that they both get their shot at it. i'm going to ask only one more because i'm told there are 20 minutes remaining and i want to give something to the floor. just briefly, give your observation on the civil liberties oversight board which ostensibly was great when you came in and as far as i think was essentially -- by the time he left office in 2010. is that a viable way of overseeing whether privacy and civil liberties are being honored? >> we moved, we did move very fast but we did created during my time. it lasted for a while, and then i think it fell off and now it has been revised.

maybe it shouldn't have happened to. >> it was dead while i was there, but i was in favor of it. you know, the more check should have, because i agree with your basic point that ms. use the power of intelligence community can cause great damage. and the more checks you have on it, the better. so i think it should be there. the president's intelligence advisory board performs some of those functions. i mean, it oversees the entire intelligence community from a separate viewpoint, and if they see something that is in the civil liberties of private areas, a campus event. i had some of his discussions with members of the board, which is very active. so yeah, one more organization with that would be good. >> raise your hand to wait for a microphone, please. keep it brief. there are some over here.

>> just one data point on the previous discussion. either question not related. the supreme court has ruled i believe that there is no expectation privacy unmitigated. so i think that's another factor in this whole discussion. but my question really is about, really addressed to both of you in your capacity as former -- which is that in terms of domestic surveillance and domestic intelligence from no question our international intelligence can improve other many plots. but notably there's a song case, the muslim bombing in boston. these were domestic individuals that were in contact with people overseas, and we didn't catch

those. so how do those slip through the cracks? how do we connect those dots? how could we have done better? and also, a footnote to that is the fbi really capable of doing -- [inaudible] >> i think one of the things that happen over time, the last decade or two, is that the definition of the national security community has really broadened. in the old days comment in the cold war it was state of ncaa. you pretty much every situation covered. now with 9/11, terrorism and so forth your dhs. i think one of the major features of intelligence reform and the wmd commission report by silverman and rob afterwards was to try to rope the fbi more into this process but because they have this habit of delegating

investigations to the field everybody was doing their stuff on a yellow legal pad and it is sharing that with anybody else. i think now there's more after the decade is better, more a culture of intelligence in the fbi. i think that's been one of the topics of intelligence reform. and then the next big thing of course has been empowering and -- more and better which is a brand-new agency back in 2002, 2003 but i think that is now moving the page is a lot more seven. but these things are process that can't be accomplished overnight. i think it's much better than what it will take some time. when you think about state, local, tribal entities can you're talking what, 17,000 police forces this country? on me, we have a very divided

police authority. so monitoring some of the stuff isn't so easy domestically, and i would add, my last point to be, that those of us who dealt with foreign policy and foreign intelligence always approach to the issue of domestic intelligence with great skittishness. i would say it's somewhat outside of our comfort zone, how to deal with this and for all the reasons which has been almost an hour discussing. >> over here, also in the center. >> thank you. dan with cbs. we've heard from you, apple, that you prefer these programs be secretive, they work better. so transit, comment if you want, of course, the kids to say trust me? only the president of the united states? i don't think the nsa has a reputation that american people will trust the nsa because the nsa says trust me. who gets to say trust me?

>> this is not an unknown problem in american government. you put out what the government policy and the general procedures are. congress authorizes, and if there's a skinny for supreme court, or for a court case of some type, you follow it. i mean, i think they should be put into the general way that american society big questions that trade on security, resources, and privacy and civil liberties. but you can't do it in a completely open with. so i'm for following the system this country is to decide the questions. >> plato in his republic would've said the nocturnal council, right, secret body in the back. we don't do that, right? we are democracy, but gosh, when you compare to what the system was 50 years ago, the extent of oversight is just huge. gin sloshing sure who was head

of the cia 34 years ago told me once that lunch that there was no oversight committee then, no intel oversight. so you go and brief the senators at lunch about what was going on at the cia and the start a conversation by saying senator, i would like to take some of things we've been doing lately. and the center said no, i would want to do that. i mean, that was the reaction in those days its intelligence and save and you're doing and interest of national security, don't run the risk of sharing it to widely to people. he felt just one senator was already too much. we have gone way beyond that now, way beyond making of a. with committees, we have this and that. so i think we have subjected the intelligence community to an extraordinary amount of oversight. i think sometimes what here the press saying is we would just like to see it all. and i don't think we can do

that. still have effective national intelligence. >> i'm going to try to get a cup -- a couple of quick questions as. let's start a microphone you. i'm going to go to the corners. that's all think we will be able to do. >> the 9/11 commission recommended the creation of the office of dni. and also recommended the creation of the privacy and civil liberties board. unfortunately, neither administration seems to be good to have a robust privacy and civil liberties board with authorities in power, reporting requirements, created until it became fully operational this past may with the confirmation of the chair. it seems that all of you would

suggest that greater transparency be injected into the process. there's a lot of misinformation and disinformation that has come out about the overall practices of intelligence community. in particular nsa. and i'm wondering whether you think that the privacy board has now constituted as we discussed over prior years here in aspen is an appropriate mediator of the debate that needs to happen to both inform the public and to provide greater transparency? or whether that is better conducted in some other forum spent let's leave it at that for a moment. why don't we bring in a microphone back there. i'm going to take all the questions first. and while doing that i would just add, on the privacy board,

it has five members that are supposed beyond 20% of time. we have one full-time equivalent to the entire intelligence community. >> thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. i was wondering if entering the area, the air of cyberwarfare has acted as a gang changer? what any by the, a few years ago when north korea hacktivist of india's, they had sent hackers to japan before, which were used in the attack as well. so the enemy said could come from everywhere and anywhere. so the question would be, is there an attitude now that the nation cannot afford to not collect all data available wherever they are and whatever data they are, because they have to defend and they all so -- yells out to dissuade enemies and have to guarantee to keep

superiority in the world? spent let's move to the opposite corner. why don't we start answering those two. and then will get the last question. >> i would say that on the civil liberties board, i don't think we should subcontract the function to identify to be done by the leadership of the intelligence community internally. they should be talking about it. they should be setting the tone, not just say, well, whatever they put out. that's okay with us. on the, cyber has made a tremendous difference in the intelligence business because that's where information goes. and i think that most of us have been in the business would feel a lot worse if we missed a key communications that have

intercepted, has been interpreted correct what they would've saved the lives of our citizens and if we had not taken the effort to do it. so the information is exploding. we have this nagging suspicion that maybe something other that would save the lives of our fellow citizens or those in other countries, and we are driven by trying to be able to do that, interpreted correct become disinformation to the right people to save lives. and that is the motivation of 99.9% of those of us who are in the business and i think that's what our citizens are to expect. and vacated. >> i've been given the two-minute warning. no timeouts. >> my name is chris taylor. ambassador negroponte, admiral blair, thank you so much for your service donation to to put question to is the time for national security act of 2014? and is a time for us to truly sit down and talk about a national security advisor to a true national security advisor?

and without help or hinder, would that have helped or hindered you in your previous jobs at dni? >> i think you'd might just be running the risk of opening a huge can of worms if you try to come up with new national security act legislation to at least from an intelligence perspective, i would've thought you might advocate new legislation, if he felt that the intelligence reform simply wasn't working. and my assessment is that it is working. it's not perfect but it's not ideal. i wouldn't even have thought myself a continue to go. dni took over the committee management staff functions of the cia.

the law presented us with that outcome. i think you we open that whole debate could well be counterproductive. so at least from an intelligence purview i wouldn't advocate new legislation at this particular time. >> you know, it's probably a personal thing, but looking forward i think we do need to keep pushing at adjusting to the -- zero minutes? i'm in negative time, for those of you who are not mathematicians. i think, i do think we need to think in new ways and implement in ways that were. i think the ghosts of je jeh edr hoover and the ghost of richard nixon have long been exercised that they still have his failed influence on some of the things we're doing. technology has changed the authorities have changed. no big security problem that faces the training can be solved by one of the national security

agencies that we have acting alone. they are all things that everybody has to participate in. you have to have a nation. if we can get towards that over time, that would be good. >> thank you very, very much, both of you. [applause] >> c-span clever discussion this afternoon on immigration. and the impact it has on state economies. stephen moore of "the wall street journal" and the president of the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce joined the discussion. here's a look at part of the conversation. >> five years, roughly, rough numbers, about 1 million new jobs in the state of texas in the last five years.

and roughly a million lost jobs in california. that's amazing but, in fact, one of the points that we are writing a book on this is what we're seeing is one of the great wealth transfers in american history, geographically, from states like california that don't get it right. my home state of illinois is another example in states that do get it right like texas. this is one reason to be very bullish on the future of texas. the interesting thing also is texas and california are the two highest immigration states. one of the interesting things is that texas does a much, much better job in my opinion of economically assimilate in immigrants so that they are successful. telephone is much more of a welfare state. it in dr. mays immigrants into the welfare system at a much higher pace than texas does. people come to texas in my opinion for jobs. people go to california for welfare. so you're saying i think the different economic outcomes as a result of this. texas is the mall the other

states should be emulating. >> the immigration discussion continues at seven eastern at c-span panel. we will take a phone calls, and you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. c-span town hall is live at seven eastern. each night while congress is on recess we are showing encore presentations of human agency spent too. today, former carson bob ney, the ohio republican spent a year in federal prison after pleading guilty to corruption charges. today at seven eastern. and then at eight eastern booktv in prime time.

>> we have more coverage of nonfiction books and the book industry every weekend on booktv. including in depth live every month a three-hour look at one author's body of work with your questions. over the next few months september 1, ben shapiro. october 6, civil rights leader and democratic congressman from georgia john lewis. november 3, kitty kelley. along with our schedule you can also see our programs any time at booktv.org and get the latest updates throughout the week. follow was on facebook and twitter. ♪

>> if we turn away from the needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about this suffering. >> the white house as a bully pulpit and we ought to take advantage of it. >> obesity in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis. >> just a little antennas pointing up to do when somebody had their own agenda. >> there is so much influence in the office it seems such a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the past what was going on with american women. >> she becomes a chief compromise, really the only one you can trust. >> many others were first ladies, a lot of them were writers, journalists. they wrote books. >> they are in many cases more interesting as human beings than their husband. if only because they are not first and foremost limited by

political ambition. >> edith roosevelt is one of the unsung heroes. when you go to the white house today, it's really edith roosevelt's white house. >> during this statement, a little breathless and there was too much looking at and i think it was a little too fast. i want a change of pace next time. >> yes, ma'am. >> i think in every case, the first lady is really done whatever fits her personality, and her interest. >> she later wrote in her memoir that she said i, myself, never made any decision. i only decided what was important and when to present it to my husband your now, you stop and think about how much power that is, it's a lot of power. >> prior to the battle against

cancer is to fight the fear that accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way we look at these bugaboos, and made it possible for countless people to survive. and to flourish as a result. i don't know how many presidents realistically have that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the white house grounds, i am constantly reminded about all of the people that lived there before, and particularly all of the women. >> "first ladies," a c-span original series produced in cooperation with the white house historical association. season two premieres september 9, as we explore the modern era and first ladies from edith roosevelt to michelle obama.

>> "new york times" photojournalist michael kamber recent release his new book, "photojournalists on war: the untold stories from iraq." 10 years after being in iraq, he and a group of journalists set out to discuss the lessons learned from the iraq war coverage and its effect on the journalists. this discussion from the new america foundation in new york city is one hour. >> so thanks for coming out tonight on an unreasonably wet, june evening. it's great to see such a wonderful turnout up here. a few words before introduce three incredibly esteemed colleagues up here. since the committee to protect journalists began practice attacks on journalists some 30 years ago, no conflict has been as dangerous for journalists

since the war in iraq. since 2003, 150 journalists and more than 50 support workers have been killed there. the vast majority of them were targeted. these journalists were killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time because they were caught in crossfire or hit with shrapnel with a car bomb. they were killed because of who they were and more specific, what they did. they were killed because they dared to write, report, the photograph, and videotape. 93 murders, and how many people were convicted for those crimes? none so far. that gives iraq to shameful distinction of being number one, for the fifth consecutive year. most of those killed is working for iraqi news organizations. iraq has been a dangerous place for 44 -- foreign correspondents

to operate. but it's been a particularly dangerous place for iraqis, working for iraqi allies. they been picked off by malicious, insurgents, games and flexibly with powerful individuals seeking to silence critics. they can at least 57 iraqi towns fled into exile. i say the real number is far greater but i personal about two dozen iraqi journalists who have sought refuge here in the united states. last year for the first time since 2003, cpj did not document any work-related killings of journalists in iraq. but before he would assume this is good news, we consider what's happened to the media landscape in iraq. a year ago this month, the iraqi government media regular ordered 44 local and international media outlets to be shut down. although authorities did not

enforce the directive, local journalists say that that order was intended to be a warning shot to news outlets, that they should throw the government line. later in the year, iraqi parliament debated a proposed cyber crime bill which would carry a penalty of life imprisonment for violations such as using the internet to harm the reputation of the country, for broadcasting what they would deem to be false or misleading facts intended to damage the national economy. and just a couple of months ago the shia led government there suspend the license of 10 mostly pro-sunni muslim division chance of getting them of sectarian incitement. stations with some of the largest and most popular media outlets in iraq. as was the international satellite broadcaster al-jazeera. and then there's the reduction or should i say the near elimination of u.s. and other western coverage of the war.

precious few american news organizations still maintain a presence in baghdad today. syria, iran, the arab spring, the fall out of the air spring are all sucking up all the oxygen and dollars are left for foreign companies. but iraq remains vitally important, the country has been in it is teetering on the brink of yet again another civil war. so this evening i don't want this discussion to be one of those back patting navelgazing discussions of journalism. we could all sit up here and, you know, until the wee hours of the morning tell war stories. we're not going to do that. we're going to look back a little bit but we will look forward, talk about what i hope will be the important lesson the coverage of this war, even as we all, i think i can speak for this group, we all hope will never have to come another were as awful as this one has been. i'm really privilege to be up here with three colleagues whose work has just been region it,

and whose work i give a respected and whose work i'm sure all of you have seen over the years. dateline from iraq and in some cases from points beyond. to my immediate left is ahmed fadaam. ahmed calls himself an accidental journalist, and perhaps has the most interesting resnik that any of us up here. before the war he was of all things a sculptor and a professor of art at baghdad university. now, after the war, as the university was close record of time, as many other organizations in the country were, he chose to try to make his living as a generalist. and he's done quite well at that, working for "the new york times," "the times of london," among others. most recently as a field producer for al-jazeera english. he is currently serving as a

scholar in residence at elon university in north carolina where he speaks. to his left is the amazing have a long. -- hannah allam. she spent two years covering the war in iraq. was a fellow resident of the hotel in baghdad when we at the post with it. and has authored a number of fantastic dispatches from there, and was one of the preeminent voices covering the arab spring, particularly the fall of the mubarak regime a couple of years ago. and then to my far left, to the right side of the stage is michael kamber, simply an amazing photojournalist. he has been shooting professionally for a

quarter-century. has had these pictures appear in publications all over the world, but you probably here in new york have seen the most frequently in the pages on the website of the new times, both his photography as well as his writing. he is the author of a simply remarkable new book entitled "photojournalists on war: the untold stories from iraq," which if i failed to mention at the end of this event is on sale up there at the bar to the right of the bottles of wine. so when we're done, teachers have another glass of wine, pick up a copy of the book. get michael decided for you. now, just in going through these buyers, usually it's all a bunch of what we journalists call the matter at the end of them. but i did note that he has one of the greatest lines in your come in addition to all dislike towards his one that i will not, you know, bore you with right now. if i this one every significant

award, photographer that should win, in 2001 he worked on a three-part series on mexican immigration was included in the book. i had never heard of before but i must now pick up called the best american nonrequired reading. in any event, i would like to start out, ahmed, by asking you were there as recently as -- >> i just left 10 months ago. >> we journalists are bad at math, my apology. let's talk a little bit about the state of affairs there. well targeted killings of journalists seem to have at least for the last 12 months not been a feature of the threats

facing foreign workers there, let's talk about what that environment is like. we shouldn't be lulled into thinking that all someone that is a magically -- >> it's not. we think that there is less killing going on right now, that doesn't mean it's not a hostile environment for journalists. [inaudible] especially by the army and by the police, in a country where it is supposed to be a democracy. freedom of speech. after 35 years of oppression is what i'm saying. but i think that they are trying to get back to the same to prevent people from speaking

again. before 2011, before the american departure we used to have chosen a special iraqi journalists who were targeted, just because they are working as journalistic we were considered, such with locals, considered as spies. at the beginning people used to ask is who you work for, and we say we are working for an american organization, we were in danger. because the occupation was led by american forces. i use to work in the beginning and when i say i worked for the french, they say fight it because the french don't have any harm in -- army here. after a while when i worked for a western organization --

[inaudible] we were considered as spies, as people who trade with people's lives come with people's lives. and the people used to look at us if we were happy to have explosions. this is how we look at us. they didn't know that we are trying to bring the truth out and talk about what is really happening. so most of the threats were coming from the armed groups, the insurgency groups, and sometimes from the american forces. not a lot from iraqis at the beginning. they were good with journalist. but after that, stuff change. no one was allowed to work, not the americans, not the iraqi police or army, or even --

[inaudible]. and now, and after the americans are gone we saw the iraqi army and police are becoming more and more hostile against journalis journalists. it became very useful to have a journalists -- have his cameras broken, taken into custody for a couple of hours. may be tortured. also, we started seeing journalists targeted not because they are journalists because they work for this specific newspaper or this radio station or tv channel. and now we are having journalists being targeted because they are -- [inaudible] spin if you look at some the iraqi government statements about news organizations and

their accusations being subversive, acting against the national interest, and you change just a few the words, could have been statements issued by the coalition press authority back a decade ago. talk a little bit about the restrictions that you guys face as a journalist in your time there, imposed by the u.s. military, and the degree to which you see a legacy in those restrictions as now being implemented by the iraqi government. did they learn, and copper, some of the work tendencies of the u.s. motor? >> now, i mean, i started seeing

it come in 2003 it was be much wide open, you know. we which is rome the streets and link up with whoever, and we worked pretty freely. and then, you know, late to the house and three going into 2004 it started to tighten up. the american started to tighten it up. i mean come in the beginning of every member sign in to that restriction. and then slowly i would go back and we have designed a page page, then we had to sign two pages. in at longer and longer. towards the end we are signing a 15 page document that said that we could not photograph wounded soldiers without the written permission. [laughter] >> and in every instance that is able to document a photographers taking pictures of a soldier that they killed inaction, they were instantly banned frequently. they are news organizations, and you can community, verified this, were not able to get to

combat zones, et cetera. and you saw the iraqis pick it up pretty quick, you know. i think 2004 they started, you know, like at first it was hostels were off limits, and then it was car bombs were off limits. and then they wouldn't let us photograph iraqi soldiers. it just grew and grew. and i remember in 2007, i remember, was a maliki, i can remember, going on tv and saying anybody was photographing carbide seems or the scenes of violent than propaganda for the enemies of iraq. we instantly became targets, you know. the other thing i want to point out is that i remember i left iraq in january of 2012. ..

they didn't even carry slr because it was too dangerous and a major target for getting been beaten and, you know. >> beaten by security. >> by iraqi security force. they won't take the camera out of the their pocket. i said you're not going to try to sneak photographs? s? they said we don't try to sneak photographs anymore. we get beaten so badly. i went and worked around the city and they were at the car bomb scene and hasn't taken any pictures. that were there all day.

>> i lived there if for two years and covered iraq for seven or eight years. it was a mixed bag. sometimes the military would have a -- with you. you could talk to people and, you know, really steering you away, and, you know, god forbid you hear a bit of news, you know. you do to do a happy thank giving story and it's like did you get to talk to your parents? no. we are on blackout because someone committed suicide. you can't report that. it was really -- it was a mixed bag. you would go to, for example, southern iraq was known to have a really good military public relations apparatus, and so it was much freer to work down there. there was a commander at the time, pete, who really got it, and allowed much more unvettered access.

they also reached out to the iraqi press and gave them, you know, equal access. that was actually a rare example where, you know, where it worked, and you could work. i think it got disproportionate amount of coverage. years old work where as dealing with mat rein or whoever else it was really different. >> did you feel a lot of based on relationship and personalities? >> yeah, i did. and individuals who were in that role that the time kind of jelled and got it. they tried as best as they could to do workshops with some of the iraqi commanders saying pr is your friend, and you can't just totally clamp down. but that being said, i was just there a year ago for the arab summit was held in baghdad, and they were determined it was the try homecoming to iraq which has been stolen away by the shiite.

these are all of these from around the region coming to at least step in baghdad and leave. i don't think any spent the night. there was a big extravaganza, they were determined to show how open, free, and democratic. there was a three-day conference, i think. we got visa, day tree -- three conference wraps up. we were treated. there was a lot of security, but, you know, we were come this way. interview this person, and we're here to help you. and day three wraps up, all the dignitaries go home, and, you know, they said great, you have to leave now. but my visa is for a week. we have no place to put you. we have nothing. we have, you know, off you go. there was absolutely nothing beyond that sort of thought we can pull it together when we want to, only for three days. and then things go back to normal. and all of iraqi journalist said don't get used to it. it's not how it normally is.

>> i should note when i went to iraq in 2002 to cover one of those referendum getting a week-long visa. actually you stay the whole week. >> right. that's all i wanted to stay. [laughter] >> when you look at the challenges that journalists have faced over the past decade today from restrictions imposed first by the americans and now the iraq key government, and you look at the challenges that journalists continue to face. which is the very precarious security environment, which, yes, we had a golden era in the first few months after the start of the innovation. summer of 2003, but it slid downhill pretty quickly thereafter. when you look at the security challenge, and then either you overlay all of that, the very real sort of financial

challenges, in fact, that u.s. news organizations don't have the sort of money and international news organizations also are feeling this pain. help us understand how you sort of rank these sort of challenges. what, you know, what was the principle impediment to being able really to dot sort of work you want to do. i should note as a caveat to this, inspite of those three real hurdles, and others, all of you did phenomenal work. when you look at the pictures you published and dispatchers you filed, you managed triumph against a lot of that. help us understand how each of these factors are. those other two factors sort of played in with official government restrictions. [inaudible] >> it was extraordinary

expensive. there were two routes you could take. one cost absolute lie nothing. the other route was i don't know $1,000 or $1500 a day. there was nothing in between. i feel that being -- >> the free -- >> i remember guys telling me they flew to kuwait and the military fibbinged -- picked them in. sat down, gave them a cot. took them around the country. they were take you to photograph soccer bomb or painted a school. maybe they weren't going to frequently unless you developed relationship you weren't going get to the real stuff. you can could stay indefinitelily for a bed for months and it would cost you nothing. even if you had a money there was nothing to buy. the other option was be in the world. if you were not going to be getting kidnapped or filled you had to have a ab rate security force. i'm not talking about a convoy of humvee. i think that was the most

dangerous thing you could do. am i wrong? >> you didn't want to attract attention. >> yeah. >> you have pressure precious freelancers who did -- unilateral reporting. it was really real original on the ground reporting. but the likes of which it just -- you don't it beyond the first few months. >> you have to do it safely. smartly. you couldn't just get off the plane and jump out and hail a cab on the street of baghdad and off you go. like in parachute journalism and others. if you made it from. but you could do it if you had a trusted team. if you, you know, had enough humility to accept the advice of your local staff and friends and

colleagues. to know the limitations and know that's a good story, but i cannot there right now to do it. and you had to walk away from some of them unfortunately. there was a matter of trust sometimes. between iraqi staff and the foreign correspondents. we know the cub. -- country. we know what is happening in the country. we mix with the people all the time. the foreign correspondents most of the time for a day working. we can go back home, communicate with neighbors, friends, and know what is happening. when they ask us, for example, to go to -- and we know that it's deadly. we would say that's not a good idea. they keep saying we have to go there. [laughter] i'm telling you. it's not a good idea. it's going to be really deadly. no, you're afraid to go.

this is what it is. sometimes i heard this a lot of times. i said, okay, you want to challenge me? let's go. but if something happens then don't say -- don't blame me then. and this was the thing. then with time this trust started to build. so after that, when we started to tell them okay, it's off limits. we can't go there. they would say okay. and at some point especially when the kidnapping started against the foreign correspondents we became the iraqi staff became the eyes and ears for the foreign staff for some time until things started cool off a little bit, and they managed to get out safely. >> except for the -- yeah. >> can i say also, it's not -- it was kind of a self-policing thing. it worries me a bit. i don't see the same going on in, you know, libya most recently and not syria.

where we didn't like it. those of us living there full-time dealing with the security risk every day. we didn't like it when somebody comes in. a freelancer, or someone and does the daring do and takes off in a cab and goes there on his or her own. it puts all of us at risk. should the person get kidnapped. this person, they have a ransom. it feeds the industry. there was a backlash against it. at one point, one of my colleagues decided the insurgent groups were in army of this or that. i propose we make the army of the journalists with and, you know, we're going to kidnap those, put them trunk and teach them a lesson so they don't put us at risk. it was really, you know, it was serious business. we didn't want them coming in and getting us all killed. >> and sometimes some of the rival that the journalists who came to iraq for the first time,

they don't know anything about what is happening on the ground. they have no experience in dealing with the people. they think it's an easy task. they can do whatever they want. they can talk to whoever they want. they can go to whenever they want. sometimes they don't have anyone to help them and do what they want. they pick up a taxi from anyone and say take me there, i'm going talk to people. they go there and get surprised by people being so hostile against foreigners. and, you know, sometimes they unthinkable can happen. so this was also another problem with the -- >> yeah. you know, the key to staying safe. people got killed. and the key to staying safe was listen together iraqi when they said it was time to duo. it was time to go. >> it highlights what a vital role our iraqi colleagues played in the whole process. i mean, the most valuable colleagues of mine in the post

baghdad bureau and the times were all the iraqis who work with us. and many of them coming from backgrounds like you as up sculptor. one of my resourceful guy was a fighting for iraqi airways who had a good sense of reeding people, reading the street, and you ignored him at your own peril. i could go on endlessly and the number of lives saved because of their incredibly, you know, quick thinking. >> also, i want to say the big stories year after year -- i don't want to speak for "the new york times." i was in the bureau, the big stories you saw year after year after year. the guys doing the work on the

street were iraqis. certainly, you know, dexter went out and sabrina. they did great work but, you know, the people who would go out. they would check the neighborhood beforehand. they would do preliminary interview or sometimes do all the interview, you know. it was the iraqis going out day after day after day when we continue -- couldn't go out at all. >> and stepping up great individual pearl. they would be traveling you or me and have to return home to their neighborhoods, to their families. in many cases they were lying to their neighbors. they didn't want them to know they work for a western news organization. inevitably in some case they were found out. people threatened, beaten up, some cases killed. and it was only after some years that the u.s. government finally got around to starting to issue special immigrant visas to iraqis who worked for western

news organizations, and still in my view, far slowly. >> an issue in mind is the special immigrant visa that, you know, congress is approved since 200825,000 special immigrant visas. four iraqi translators who worked with media, who worked with military. these were eyes and ear on the ground. how many have they issued to date? like 4600. and the program expires in september unless congress extends it. that's something forward looking to take from this because, you know, you still have people we were talking about a mutual friend of ours in baghdad who sat out the first round. he believed that things would improve and he could stay and work as a journalist. this is my government, i voted for these guys. this is my community. we are fairly safe. what is this to fear? here we go. i got the news last week that he too has applied for this

resettlement option. that's the greatest tragedy, personally of this. we thought, okay one day our bureau will shudder and we'll go home and the american publics' attention will shift elsewhere as it has, but at least we'll leave this legacy of a, you know, a free press, a probing press. an independent press, and but maybe, one, two, maybe three of our original 18-person staff, the ones alive have fled. they are in sweden, they are ukraine. they are in atlanta and massachusetts. d.c. so, you know, we haven't that left that legacy. we were a bureau that took pains to, you know, we lived in between them slow days. we would, you know, talk about journalism and, you know, they would have their own blog inside iraq. they would report do all their own story.

we promoted that and to what end? none of it exists anymore. >>let talk about your book for a second. what prompted you to pull the book together and, you know, going through these incredibly compelling arresting images over the weekend? i was struck with wondering the degree to which people react differently to some of the images with the pass age of time and help us understand the feedback you have received, and whether some of these very, very difficult to look at immajts that nonetheless, you know, vital to see because they depict the truth of war. how does the perspective change or are we now able to look at

imagery of the iraq war. the sort of which which was difficult to get published in the early years of the conflict? >>. >> that's a complicated question. starting off with the book, i mean, the answer is simple, really. i wasn't coming home and seeing my history of the war reflected. i didn't see what i knew reflected out there. people, you know, the american people in particular didn't seem to know what i knew. i was learning more all the time from my colleagues, you know, and the book is also a world history. i was talking to them and learning the stories. i was thinking the american people don't know this at the certain point. it sort of became this thing i felt i can't live with myself if i don't do something to collaborate it or collect it and colate all of this. my pictures are not in the book. it's basically putting material in one place. all of these things are floating around out there, you know, and needs to be pulled together. i feel like it's as

photojournalists it's our history of the war. and, you know, i think it applies to a lot of journalists that work there. for whatever reason -- there was great journalism done. there was great newspaper articles and magazine articles. i didn't see it all together in one place. and then, you know, i don't know that -- i talked to a lot of photographers and said why were you taking the picture. you couldn't get them published. i saw stanley greene and he took a picture and it's just really like the burn charred bodies of the american contractors killed there at the bridge in 2004, and, you know, there's a crowd of people, you know, stepping on them and mutilating them. and, you know, there were no way we were going have the pictures published, you know, and i asked a lot of photographers why they took them. they said we take them for history. we take them -- we know we can't get it out there now. someday people will be ready to look at this.

and the pictures will be there. i'm not favor -- i'm not trying to glorify violence or, you know, just the opposite. the book is -- these photograph hopefully they'll stand as a warning and not -- hopefully it will be something people look at in the future the next time we think about rushing off in a military adventure. you think about, you know, i want to say publicly i was never in iraq. i was never in the middle east. i was covering wars in africa. i thought it was a great idea. we'll get rid of the guy and solve democracy. what can be complicated about that? didn't go so well, you know, i think that hopefully we need to have warning signs out there that people can look back on the future. >> if you talk to u.s. government officials who were in power back 2003, 2004, 2005, they would argue a lot of imagery that came out of iraq,

still or video, was too focused on on the negative, on the gory. let look at it differently. do you think that the imagery that actually got published was too sanitized? >> completely, completely. most americans have never, you know, we lost almost 5,000. we probably lost 5,000 americans over there including contractors. most americans have never seen a picture of a dead american soldier. >> it took years before we could see a casket at dover. >> yeah. even at arlington when the families invited photographers to the cemetery to photograph funerals, they were not allowed. you were not allowed to have a photographer come and photograph the funeral of -- if you your son was killed or your husband, you know, and you saw this as a tribute and you

wanted to have this memorialized, the pentagon said it was off limits. you couldn't not photograph a funeral. they put as, you know, they basically they were smart about it. they basically couched the thing. it's a issue of privacy for the soldiers. the soldiers have a right to privacy. this is what i was told repeatedly, and it was smart because they were seeing -- they had the defenders of the soldier and put us in a position of people wanted to disrespect the soldier. that wasn't it at all. first of all, if you're going enlist in the military and go halfway around the world and invade somebody's country. that's not a private event. this is war. this is one of those important public undertaking and the last twenty five years in america. you don't have a right to private if you are taking part in that. what about the iraqi citizen? where does -- and so, you know, we were

constantly fighting back against it. >> quite frankly, a lot of men and women want war to be depicted as what it is. >> we got all the time. they would say it's bull shit. and different photographers say it in the book. i don't want to make it sound like the u.s. military is monolithic. there are different unit and people involved. a lot of are smart are progressive, and especially a lot of young captains against the young captains they were poets. one guy had a rock band in berlin before he enlisted. another guy was a professional surfer. you would run against the young captain and lieutenant. they said we want the american people to see what is going on. they tell a story about going from unit to unit and some units are saying you can't take a picture. i continue -- don't want to see a hangnail. she would leave and go to another unit and the guy would

say we have old humvee not up -- we don't have the right slack jacket. we don't have the things we need. we need you to show the american people. we need you to show people in washington what it is we're up against, you know. so it really dependented -- depended on the unit you were with. >> i've been -- monopolizing a lot of time here. i know, you have spent time. others incredibly engaged in a seventy issues -- set of issues love to hear your question. we can continue the discussion. over here. can you please wait for the microphone to come to you? keep your questions brief, that would be great. >> my name is malcom arnold. can you talk about where the break down occurs why the pictures, et. cetera, are not being published you have the state department, et. cetera, dod preventing that. but there's also the equation of

a news organizations and the corporations, et. cetera. can you talk about that process and where is the exact breakdown? if we can identify the breakdown maybe question address it. >> do you want me to take that? yeah. you know, that's a tough one. myself and a lot of photographers fought constantly with our editors who could get more powerful photographs in. frequently, editors wouldn't -- they just didn't want to publish the photographs. they tell us people don't want to see it. they don't want to see it over their morning corn flake. i heard it constantly from different editors from around the world. in one instance i sent back a picture. maybe the most graphic i have ever taken. i had stepped over a land mine, a guy behind me stepped on it and was cut in half. i took the picture, you know, he's literally cut in half at

the waist. it's a horrible image, and not only was it not published, but editors called me and told me it was put under lock and key. it was electronically locked. nobody could access the photograph. so it wasn't just the military. it was broader than that. i also got say, you know, there was no glamour from the american people, you know, people have to go with their live. they are busy. the war is going on seven, eight, nine years. that's just iraq not even talking about afghanistan. there was no clam more from the american people we want to see the images. you have to know if you have 5,000 dead americans and you never see a picture of dead american. you have to step up and put pressure on the news organizations and the editors. there has to be a public push for this. >> what is the excuse of the editors back then for not using the picture? >> i've been in the situation before. i'm not a photographer. i ran the video desk, so i used

to do a lot with the video camera. sometimes we would have to stay longer than photographers because, you know, it's video. we have to final taking of pictures. and i've been trapped in to several times in to gunfire because either american soldiers and armed groups or between american contractors and snipers and stuff. and got out with great picture, and took them back to the office, edited them. sent them to paris. i used to work for the french, then they don't use them. when i say why and they said there's a lot of dead bodies and burning bodies and you see the picture. they are hard to the eye for the eye to see. and didn't understand in the beginning. >> right. where is the line? you know, we don't need burning bodies in the picture in the paper every day, you know, i

don't know how often we need them we need them occasionally. >> to some extent, people who -- it's sort of becoming a debate because of, you know, the expanded satellite television, websites, they're, you know, if you really want to see what it looks like you can now. and with the, i think, the growth of the al al jazeera brand which doesn't shy away from showing what wars likes like on the receiving end. i think that's another option as it expands in the western market. >> there was a difference between going at it actively. >> absolutely. >> and quite frankly, confronting people, occasionally with -- >> absolutely. >> the true horror of these sort of conflicts. back there. >> hi. i actually work with a group to expect journalists. in hind signed, i was wondering

for you could talk about what we learned from iraq that we could apply as the u.s. is pulling out of afghanistan now. both on the ground with journalists staying on the ground, and when we're talking about special immigrant visa. >> i will take a stab at that one then kick it over to my fellow panelists. the special immigrant visa program doesn't apply to afghans working for u.s. news organizations. so a very brave afghan translater for "the washington post was forced a few months ago to travel to canada where he sought asylum because there was no legal pathway for him to apply for refugee status in the united despite risking his life for eight/nine years for the "the washington post" and facing growing threats and intimidation because of his work for u.s. news organization there.

and, you know, even for afghans who work not for news organizations, but for international forces there because it's a nato mission and not a u.s. mission like it was in iraq. you have a number of afghans who work for u.s. forces who are ineligible for the visa program. there's legislative fibbings on the hill. it's still at an embryonic state right now. bottom line is admitly there are fewer afghan journalists working for western news organizations in kabul and other major cities. the sad reality of the u.s. war. they committed fewer resources to the war. they just don't have the same pathway. and for the many iraqis who have applied and in some cases applied two, two, three years ago they continually get caught up in the limbo of what is being

called a security review it is a placement of the a lot of applications to black wokses and people, you know, for example, you know, the 70-year-old mother of one of my former baghdad employees who has been left in security review for two years. any of you care to add to that? >> what he said, yeah. it's true. it can take a long, long time. and it's a bit complicated. >> did you come on that? you came on special visa? >> i came on special have visa. in 2008 i came as a visiting scholar on unc university in chapel hill, north carolina. and while i was here, i was informed there was a special program was opened for the yierk keys drk -- iraqi that worked for them.

i said great where can i apply? they said you can't. they said you have to apply in baghdad, jordan, or -- i'm in the states. they said yove to do it there. so i went wack to baghdad in 2009 with my family. i applied july 2009, and i got my visa, in august 2012. so -- i scrolled been killed -- could have been killed like 100 times in the waiting process until i got my visa. i was supposed to arrive in the states on july 1st, but i then arrived on august 17th. the reason why is that on july 1st. they called me and said your flight has been canceled. i said why? they said no idea. after investigating, they said okay your last medical check was

done on july 15th. since it's only 14 days left, your medicals can consider to expire. you have to do it again. and by that time, i had sold my car, my furniture, almost my house, and was only have my luggage with my family waiting to get boarded on the plane. they called me and said it's has been canceled. these are the kind of difficulties the iraqis are facing. they also, you know, my experience people who worked at "the new york times," you know, they didn't get a lot of support from the u.s. government once they got here. i had -- >> it's true. >> i had friends i worked with. one friend in particular, we were literally covering combat together in different places, and she got her visa, and, you know, like a month later she was actually got a job at macy's her

job was to find the lost shoes. she was working in the shoe department i just and i think she got i think they got $500 a month for six months or something for rent. it was basically it. it's like you're on your own now. >> yeah. you're on your own. you have to pay back the ticket for the airplane. >> and people are coming here with their entire family. especially a lot of parents don't speak english. >> as far as lessons learned and what we can impart i think really urging the news organization and groups like that follow up. they are being settled, a lot of them came being resettled during a recession. a lot of jobs they normally would apply for aren't there. they are being taken by out-of-work americans. there's -- it's overwhelming. of course they are also coming with the trauma of ten years of vicious sectarian war, and occupations. and it's really hard for them to

make their way without that support networking. one end, also, some of the because you can't really trust some of the placement. i remember one of our own staff members a sunni originally from the provitamin, it very much at risk staying in baghdad from the malicious who worked for americans with et. cetera, they decided to place him. he comes to the states, and they placed him. they said here we go. here is a spot in an apartment with four iranians. that's not going to work. [laughter] it's those kinds of things where he wouldn't have anywhere to turn if he didn't have his colleagues checking up on him. that kind of thing. >> many of them are thinking right now after they come to the state and what it means. those saying why did we come here? why did we leave iraq?

i consider myself one of the lucky ones. i signed a contract with the iranian university while in baghdad. i came here directly from the arab land to the city three days later i was teaching. i would consider myself lucky. for the others they would say that okay we used to make something like $3,000, $4 ,000, $5,000 a month working in baghdad. we are hardly making $1,000 and paying most to the rent, and just waiting for the food stamps and other aids so we can see our family. why did we come here? and the thing is, either you're staying in baghdad, make money and probably die. or come here to a safe environment and probably starve. it's -- >> many of them -- many of my friends who resettled have said, you know, as many immigrants say this is not, you know, -- it's not really for me. maybe my kids will benefit from

it. probably not in their lifetime. >> exercise moderator's prerogative for a moment and single out a member of the audience. over there who runs the iraq refugee project which is affiliated with yale handle helpful to a number of u.s. news organizations incoming the post. and helping to navigate the very complicated bureaucracy. if so you have questions about the program, i'm sure she would be willing to answer them. over here, please. >> thank you. cooper, i want to ask you to talk more about what the immediate are like. the content of the media in iraq now. >> the iraqi media? >> yes. michael was pointing out that, you know, basically every media entity is controlled by one political party or another.

how does it compare with, you know, obviously it was terrible in saddam hussein's time, can you find out more from the media now? how do you -- are there ways to read it and figure out what is really going on? >> the problem is under saddam hussein we used to have one party which was the party. and it used to control most of the media outlet we have. and the newspaper, the radio station, the tv channel. they used to all say the same thing. use the same speech, which is the government's speech. and the party speech. right now we have in iraq 340 registered political parties. each one of these parties have their own newspaper. have their own radio station. sometimes have itself own tv channel. these parties have different positions especially when it comes to the occupation, and for

-- [inaudible] happening in iraq right now. and to the government's policy. so let's give an example. the troops in iraq, some of the newspapers will call them insurgent. some of them would call them armed groups. some of them would call them resistance. some of them would call them turks. if you are any place, and you have four definition of the same group, which one would you believe? so it means you have to choose which one is close to what you think, and who you are and where you come from. and then work with and deny all the others. even if they are telling the truth and bringing -- [inaudible] but this is the situation right now. it's all it's political view and political agenda.

>> one of the main sort of sunni channel is even funny even within their own messages it's sometimes different. i remember how they call them -- militant commander when he is speaking against shia it will stay on the crawl, when he's speaking against -- it will say on the crawl antishia proiranian cleric says this. when he's speaking against americans, it says nationalists clearic. he says this. you know. [laughter] >> yes. >> thank you all. maybe taken a little direction. i'm jeremy, a medical doctor. i'm also on harvard school of

public health. we very interested in the psychology call effect of war. not just the population. i'm effects on journalist. i personally do a lot of work at walter reid with returning military troops not only with significant physical injury but incredible invisible wounds of war. i'm certain in the journalist profession because of your sensitivity and presence that the emotional engagement with what you're dealing with has important impact on you. i'm wondering if anyone is asking the question about health of journalists in that regard, and the abilities to sustain themselves and do their important work. not just protected from the physical injuries of war, but the emotional burden of dealing with conflict. and the consequences. >> that's a great question. >> you have seen a lot of horrific stuff over the past

decade. right yeah. it's tough. i feel like, you know, in a lot of ways i feel like my experience nears some of my friends were soldiers i was over there with and, you know, i remember guys telling me i don't want to admit to my commander what i'm going through because, you know, it's going to hurt my career. i'm not going to get picked for the next mission. i'm a freelancer. been a freelancer all my life. word gets out you're having problem and not dealing with well. i have to pay the rent next month. i'm a war photographer. it's what i do. i kept things tamped down. i didn't talk about it. i always say nobody gets away from free. you come back with iraq -- you deal with a lot of stuff. i don't want to taunt -- talk about it too much.

for members of the military, at least in recent years, there are end of deployment kind of outbrief with psychiatrics and others. people are given the opportunity to talk about some of the stuff. most of the organizations don't have any infrastructure like that. you go and come back, you know. let's see your work. it's notlet talk about what you saw how is this effecting you? >> they should but they don't. the each night while congress is in recess this week we're showing the encore presentation of q & a here on c-span2. today's former congressman bob ney the ohio republican spent a year in federal prison after pleading guilty to federal corruption charges. then at 8:00 eastern booktv in prime time with kitty

kelly. then from our after words program bash i are perry on her book "rose kennedy." and then david on the "pate." joseph p kennedy. i'm not sort of suburb person who thinks everyone needs to live in new york city. i was sincetive in coming across as coffee sipping, condo dwelling, you know, elitist of some kind. that's not why i did this book. i understand why people like the suburbs, you know, i get fed up with daily life in new york city a lot. ivity more drawn. the trends were undeniable. the fact there was a shift in the way suburban america is perceived by the people who live

there is too big a store to ignore. where the american dream is moving. sunday night at 9:00 on after words. part of booktv this weekend on c-span two. tonight on the encore presentation of first ladies. >> campaigning is not allowed. john quincy said i would like you to vote for me for president. you can't do that and can't ask for office directly. you have to use subtle back channel. women were a good continue wit for that. come spread their gossip, ask for favor. she doesn't always -- she knows she can't trust the people. she's not nigh '05. a lot are spreading false information or gossip, they are misleading. they have their own agenda. she is aware of the political ghaim is going on. she's not terribly a fan of it. >> the encore presentation of our original series first ladies

continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. whitey bulger is charged with murder and racketeering. the government candidate on the trial on "washington journal" this morning. >> host: joinings us from boston is the columnist from the "boston globe." and the coauthor of whitey bulger. thank you for joining us, sir. thank you for having me. who is whitey bulger? why is he on trial if >> guest: he's probably the preimminent irish-american gangster of the time. he's on trial for many acts of violence, crime, extortion, drug dealing, 19 murders. what is most significant about whitey bulger, what sets him apart from, say, john dill gear --

dillen gear or al can own. he corrupted the fbi. he corrupted the fbi to the extent they were his accomplices. they were helping him identify people to murder in the 1980 even in the 1970. he was recruited by the fbi in 1975, because the the fbi had a national policy of taking out the mafia. and all of in the country the fbi recruited criminals that would know something about the mafia. one probably with the national policy that doesn't take in to account regional differences. unlike any other place in america, in boston, the irish gang gangsters rival the mafia when it came to influence and lethal ability. the irish guys killed many more than the italian. bulger was a classic example. he was a killer but recruited by the fbi to provide information

about the mafia. and that when -- whitey started using them more than they used him. and particularly you'll see it we laid it out in extraordinary details in the book, how much to the fbi went out of the way not just to look the other way when whitey bulger murdered people but thwart the honest attempt from law enforcement to take bulger down. at one point he was a suspect in four separate homicide in a two-year period in the early '70s. including a businessman in oklahoma, a boston businessman murdered in miami, a and a hit on the water front boston. a few hundred yards down where the trial is taking place. the fbi went out of the way to thwart its own people. the fbi agents in oklahoma trying to doing the right thing. they were lied to by people in boston with the conniving and approval of fbi headquarter in washington.

>> host: our guest with us until 9:00 to talk about the whitey bulger case and what has been going on over the last few weeks in leading up to the jury, which is now in the decision-making phase. and he's going join and take your question as well. if you have questions for him give us a call. you can tweet us. what has been the approach of the prosecution and the defense? >> guest: well, the prosecution has been very matter of fact about this. it's just laid out what amounts to a mountain of evidence. the trial has been going on for now over two months, and the prosecution has spent, you know, three quarters of the time, the defense was much shorter. the defense only lasted a week. but the prosecution just laid it out murder after murder, victim after victim, and there was a

steady parade of killers, thugs, and drug dealers off of whom had cut deal with the government to testify against bulger. that in turn become the defense claim. the defense said you can't trust them. they are all killers, they are all thug, they are all drug dealers. you can't believe anything they say. so at closing argument the other day, i think it was noticeable the different approach. the government just laid it out and said the guy they were the most dangerous people on the streets of boston for twenty to thirty years. and he needs to be held accountable. the defense strategy was the opposite. while the defense lawyers would not use the word acquit. they specifically asked the jury to acquit without saying the word aquite their client and the message for the government that the fbi should be punished for protecting whitey bulger for those years.

they said let a serial murder walk free because the government corruption was bad. i compare it to animal house. they are charged with running a terrible fraternity, and we're not going listen to this. this is an attack on the united. we won't have the united assaulted. and the boys walk out of the courtroom. that's what it felt to me. it felt absurd to listen to that defense. but, you know, that's all jay carnie had going for them. they conceded in the opening statement, again in their closing statement their client is what he is. he's a gangster. he's a criminal, he's a drug dealer who made millions from drugs. that was an extraordinary admission because in this town whitey bulger -- including his brother bill who was one of the most senior politician. he was a long time president of the massachusetts senate and the president of the united

university of massachusetts. he said he never touched drug. there was a that claim that whitey kept drugs on him. i live during his reign. there were more drugs and heart aches in south boston than any other section of the city. there were people that clung to the myth. whitey bulger spent his criminal career creating this narrative. he was a good/bad guy. he was a gangster with scruples. gangsters with scruples do not rat on their friends. they certainly don't murder women. those are the only two thing whitey bulger refuted during the trial. he said he was an fbi inform hasn't. he said he didn't kill two women who were among the 19 victims hey acharged with killing. he doesn't care about the other stuff. he knows he's going die in prison. my coauthor and i got letters he wrote from jail after the arrest in santa monica in 2011 when he

said i know i'm going die in jail. i didn't kill the women. i'm not a rat. that's all he cares about it's a legacy defense. he's not trying to get acquitted. he's trying to get even. >> host: our guest has written a topic -- book on topic. the first call is bill from mississippi. republican line. go ahead, you are on with kevin of the boston globe. >> caller: good morning. my question is multifaceted. when they prosecuted al al capone he got eleven years. if they charged him with tax evasion. he's already 83. it would have given him -- he would have died in jail. it if the prosecutors opened the door to everything. absolutely everything. whitey because he wanted to defend his legacy as far as

killing women and on and so forth. choose not to testify. it was going to be his last hooray. yet he choose not to do it. i don't understand why he didn't testify. >> guest: i think i do. i think he was afraid of being cross examined by the prosecutors. once he testifies he opens himself to everything. i'm the prosecutors i go to his teen days and ask about the sexual assault he was a charged with. he was not convicted. they could ask him about it. he portrays himself as a great patriot. he did three years in the air force. i would ask him to explain why he was charged with rape when he was stationed in montana during the korea war. more specifically what he didn't want to hear from the have prosecutors him trying to explain himself 1956 he gave up his bank robbery accomplices. they robbed a bank in indiana and they robbed a bank in

massachusetts. and he gave up his accomplice. we found the report in his prison file. it's very clear that he identified these people for the fbi. so he was an informant as far back as the 1950. he couldn't live with having to be challenged on that. i mean, i think that's my opinion. had nothing to back it up. i agree he had nothing to lose. you could say he's preserving issues for appeal. that makes no sense to me. when he's sentenced, he'll be sentenced, he gets to say something. i imagine he's going give a spiel anyway. the advantage he doesn't get cross examined when i was never a rat. i never killed the women. i was honorable. the fbi was not your going to hear it at the sentencing. nobody gets to question him. >> host: florida is next-gen for on the democrat like. hi. >> caller: my question is he

surprised that the jury is still deliberating? >> no, i'm not. it's a good question because, yeah, it's an open and shut case. frankly, as i said, the defense really only contested maybe three or four of the 32 counts. they didn't really mount a defense. say he didn't kill debby davis and debby. he didn't shake down a bookie named kevin hays. i think the jury is being meticulous. it's a massive indictment. i think they are -- there's a sense i never try to read jurors. i think it's impossible. when i hear people say they're going come back today. we don't know. yesterday the judge provided some instructions. the jury had a number of questions. what they were most concern -- they didn't have agreement on all of the counts. in the racketeering count it's unusual.

he's charged with 32 count of racketeering. you only have to be convicted of two to be convicted of racketeering. that puts you away basically the rest of your life. so the judge told them if they can't agree on one charge, they can leave it blank. they can say guilty, not guilty, or leave it blank. i think what the judge's instructions, that should speed it along. >> host: quick. what is the makeup of the jury? >> guest: makeup is eight men, four women. one african-american, it's typical federal jury tend to be suburban in background. they come from the greater boston area here. like i said, it's impossible to read jurors. people make millions of dollars trying to do it and believe me, i don't make millions of dollars. >> host: massachusetts independent line. here is steven. >> caller: good morning. good morning. ii have a question about the senate president of billy

bulger. how much did whitey's reputation em bolden him to intimidate other legislators, shake down corporations, et. cetera to basically get what he wanted to get done? >> guest: that's a good question. it's a hard one to -- that's very hard to quantify. all i can tell you i interviewed -- we interviewed a number of legislators for the book, and a number of them had gone on record saying when they thought they were in conflict with bill bulger, they felt like there was power behind the throne. even white, the late mayor believed that whitey was going to kill him in the '70s during the boston crisis. south boston the home of the bulger was torn apart by court order involving the busing of different chirp. he feared for his life. he thought he was going kill him because the political stance he took. shelly murphy and i found out

whitey bulger went out of his way to intimidate and political attack people that he perceived as political enemies of his brother. and that included my newspaper, the "boston globe" which whitey and another accomplice gleefully shot up in the height of thes boston crisis because of the segregation. they fired bullet to the front of the globe's building. the next night when there was a massive police presence in the front. they went around the back on the highway and did it again. we know it's true, pat admitted to us he did it. he was proud of it. shelly and i obtained letter that whitey sent from jail he was proud of the fact he shot up the "boston boss globe. -- boston globe. he forced the globe to create a new security staff which has gone out on pension. that's how whitey sees himself as job creator. >> because the charges took over

a large period of time. are there statute of limitations concerns? >> guest: no. racketeering doesn't -- that was one of the questions the jury had. no, racketeering. a pattern of racketeering allowses the federal government to reach back decades to show a pattern of racketeering. there's no statute of limitation. obviously the only crime for which there's no statute of limitation is murder. murder is preed candidate -- predicate act in 19 of the 32 count. it's no issue of statute of limitation. the racketeering law is built as such it allows -- aimed at organize crime. it allows prosecutors to go back to the years and pull crimes to show extortion. you charge somebody in the state court with extortion you have to do it in a period of seven years. in racketeering there's no statute of limitation. you can show pattern of racketeering over a period of decades. >> host: ted from sara

florida, republican line. >> caller: yes. i was wondering your thoughts regarding the prisoner's dilemma, and how u.s. authorities work with organized crime when this prisoner data limb -- problem can lead to failure. >> host: what do you mean? >> guest: i don't know what it means. >> caller: when two criminals go to court, and they are trying to prove their innocence, but they are guilty, and they both colewd -- kollude to making it worse in the crime system. if you have the organized crime working with the u.s. authorities, isn't that going lead to more failure?

.. because there is no corroborating evidence. there was no paperwork, no phone call, no nothing. i wrote a column think i've of the government should have let him make that argument. i think he would make whitey bulger's claim look even more preposterous, the idea that, that only happens in jason bourne movies that you get a license to kill. that doesn't happen in the real world. certainly federal prosecutor does not have the authority to

grant a license to kill to any person can let alone a gangster. that said i've also written over the years that if i was whitey bulger i would've believed i had a license to go because the fbi didn't just look the other way, they helped him. they protected him. they went out of their way to keep me on the street. youcan call it what you want but in a gangster's world and in a gangster's eyes, i would've let them make a difference. i think the jury would've let them see to it for what it is. you can blame the fbi all the everyday and nobody would've been hard on them that me. at the end of the day the fbi didn't shoot people in the back of head, bury them in shallow graves. whitey bulger did. >> host: philadelphia, pennsylvania, up next. republican line. >> caller: yes, in all the time i've been following this trial -- [inaudible] >> host: you're breaking up. try one more time and then we will have to -- he is breaking

out. if you try again we'll see if we get you back on. chicago, illinois, republican line, tony. >> caller: yes, when i hear you talk about the situation in boston, it reminds me of the book written by robert cooley in chicago called corrupt city, which talks about the unholy alliance between the government agencies like fbi, the organized labor teamsters in particular, at the democratic party, which has corrupted the process in the '70s, 80s, and '90s. you found the same kind of operation between the democrats, unions, and the government in corrupting the public funds as you've talked about here so far. you know, i haven't seen a partisan sense to this. i mean, bill bulger was a lifelong prominent democrat, and actually whitey was identified to me identified himself as a

reagan democrat in his letters. as for the governments that protected him, it was different elements. i mean, clearly in massachusetts as in other places there is a close relationship between organized labor and the democratic party. but i think that you're getting, it's a little, you're kind of boring things when you say organized labor means organized crime. the teamsters in boston have their own problems. and, in fact, there were a number of criminals in and out of this story over a pit of 30 years who were members of the teamsters, including brian who tried to -- because whitey was working for the fbi, they told me good morning which he did in 1980 just down the street to so there is that cross current but i think we are going far afield when we suggest this as any kind of partisan hand. whitey bolger was protected by both democrats and republicans.

that system, the corrupt system within the fbi is nonpartisan. i would argue it is on would back to hoover. the weighted overprint things was not above board. ththe fbi played god by came to organized crime. they decided who would live and die. that began long before whitey bulger and john connally. long before they partnered up to the fbi was doing that in the 1960s in the gain was in boston when they decided who would live and who would i. >> host: how did he get his nickname transferred whitey and when is located he was like a towheaded. people called him it's funny because if you called that to them to his face he would like a hard stare. he wanted to be called by his friend jim or jimmy. his mother called him sunday. he had more nicknames than a mafia guy, but as he embraced, we notice in the letters that he

sent t from jail, he started signed and whitey bulger. he kind of brag in some of these letters that he has become the most famous former denizen of alcatraz. even bigger than capone and machine gun kelly. the one thing we saw in these letters, whitey bulger has many problems but self-esteem is not one of them. he thinks very highly of himself. >> host: mike from houston, texas, is honor and event line. >> caller: good morning. my question is, has anybody from the fbi or the fbi been held accountable for basically aiding him in his criminal activity? and also as far as today's standards, i mean, are the same things going on as far as protecting the criminal and still doing criminal activities? >> guest: let me take the first part of that. there's been one agent, john kelly. he grew up in the same neighborhood. he was prosecuted for racketeering. he was convicted in 2002 and

then was prosecuted beyond that in florida for helping whiter he -- waiting for someone. he is doing 40 years for murder in florida right now. he is the only agent and held accountable. there was one agent named paul who is acting very corrupt and do those things in the 1960s i just mentioned on getting people killed and playing fast and loose with the truth in framing people. he was under indictment for murder in oklahoma of a legitimate businessman who was murdered in 1981. he died while awaiting trial. he was in custody, but in 2002 when conley was convicted, a special prosecutor named paul durham who later went on to investigate the cia torture cases, he got up there and said he promised he would issue a report that would identify other fbi agents and supervisors who committed crimes and misconduct. the judge him one of the few heroes in this sordid tale who exposed the level of corruption not 10 years after my newspaper,

the investigative team i was on expose whitey as an informant in the first place, judge will force the fbi to admit in 1997 it was true, that they lied to us for years denying it was true. judge wolf held in his ruling a mammoth six or 61 page opus on this whole case and it has held up very well. he said there were at least a dozen fbi agents under his, what he sought evidence allies who should be facing prosecution. >> hostprosecution. but nothing ever happened and that's because the reporters have been issued by john drew or anyone in the justice department. the justice department from day one, its strategy was to minimize this. it was all about damage limitation. so they can point out that the narrative be one corrupt agent from southeast, they'll get agent worked the hometown wiseguy and it went awry. that's nonsense. there are other agents. as an agent who in 1988 called me at my office at "the boston

globe" and said, if i printed that white was in the form and i would be murdered. nothing ever happened to that agent. i testified to that point during the judging to the agent did not take a stand because he would've perjured himself to the fbi never disciplined him. the justice department never disciplined him. he retired with a full pension. john morris was john, supervisor. he was implicated in getting people killed. he rolled, he became a government witness. he never spent a day in jail. he retired with a full pension and he has become a perfect -- is testified in more than half a dozen trials including john conway's concluding this trial most recently. so as i say, i believe there was testimony by about a least a half-dozen agents taking money, being paid by whitey bulger and his partner, nothing ever happened to the because the justice department wants this to go away. the second part of that question, you asked, i'm sort of

was the second part? >> host: let's squeeze in one more call before you go. gerald from boston, massachusetts, democrats line. >> caller: mr. cullen, i'm calling from oxford and i was wondering, did whitey ever cross over columbia road into the african-american community and do any of those types of crimes that he's accused of doing treachery not that i know. i do know he is a racist. he used the n-word liberally. but no, steve coming from his partner, ran parts of roxbury and was, next three well with african-americans. he didn't have an issue. whitey was not a mixer as they said. he believed in the separation of races more or less. you wouldn't have seen them in roxbury. the question, chemical wanted a? it does go on. last year i wrote a series of columns about a guy named mark rossetti was a suspect in six murders, and the fbi used him as an informant. if not for the great work of the

massachusetts state police, he would still be out there. he was just arrested, convicted and put away for 12 years. i know the supervisor, i noticed a police officer who led the investigation, and when the fbi found out -- he went to the fbi before they targeted this guy because he said we think he is your guy. the fbi said that's not our guy. he's not our informant. the very first conversation reported when they got a wiretap on this guy, it was this criminal mark was talking to his fbi handler. does is to go on? it still goes on, unfortunately. >> host: mr. cullen, because it's in boston where the concerns that getting a fair trial treachery i think there is. i think that's a legitimate issue. could he get a fair trial. you know, should this have been moved to out of it, i would think would have to move out of new england if you want -- people in rhode island, people in connecticut people in insurance they all know this story. to learn about it by osmosis.

but it is a legitimate question. i think it's a fair question, but i also would say that, you know, our jury system is what it is. and when people say they can be impartial and they don't show any reason why they can't be impartial, i could never be on that jury. >> host: kevin cullen, author of "whitey bulger: america's most wanted gangster and the manhunt that brought him to justice." he is also a columnist for "the boston globe." kevin, thank you for your time estimate thank you. >> we were going to bring you live coverage today of parts of the reserve officers association conference in washington, d.c. because of technical issues beyond our control, we were unable to have a life. our cameras are there and you'll find this later on c-span network schedule and online at c-span.org. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s.-centric on weeknights watch key public

policy events. every week and the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> c-span levet discussion this afternoon on immigration and the impact it has on state economies. stephen moore of "the wall street journal" and the president of the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce join the discussion. here's a look at part of the conversation. >> these are just rough numbers, about a million new jobs in the state of texas in the last five years, and roughly a million lost jobs in california. that's amazing but, in fact, that's one of the points, what we're seeing right now is one of the great wealth transfers in american history geographically from states like california that don't get it right, my home state of illinois another

example state today to get it right in texas. this is one reason to be very bullish on the future of texas. the interesting thing is texas and california are the two highest immigration states. one of the interesting things that texas has a much, much better job in my opinion of economically assimilating immigrants so that they are successful here. california is much more of a welfare state. it and doctor nate's immigrants into the welfare system at a much higher pace than texas does. people come to texas in my opinion for jobs. people go to california for welfare. so you're saying i think the differing economic outcomes as a result of this. texas is the mall the other states should be emulating. >> the immigration discussion continues at 7 p.m. eastern with c-span town hall. reporters will join us. we will take your phone calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. c-span's town hall is live at

7 p.m. eastern. and each night while congress is in recess we're showing her encore presentations of 200 young c-span2. today, former congressman bob ney, the ohio republican spent a year in federal prison after pleading guilty to corruption charges. encore q&a is at 7 p.m. eastern. then at 8 p.m. in booktv in prime time, kitty kelley is this year's book festival on caption camelot. >> we have more coverage of nonfiction books and the book industry every weekend on booktv. including in depth, live every month if you look at one author's body of work with your

questions, over the next few months september 1 author columnist and editor at large of breitbart.com, ben shapiro. october 6, civil rights leader and democratic congressman from georgia, john lewis. november 3, biographer kitty kelley. along with our schedules you can also see our programs anytime at booktv.org and get the latest updates throughout the week. follows on facebook and twitter. ♪ >> if we turn away from the needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about this suffering. >> the white house is a bullet pulpit and we out to take advantage of it. >> i think i just a little

antennas that point up and told them when somebody had their own agenda. >> he would be a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the path to what was going on with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidant. she really is a way the only way -- the only one in the world he can trust. >> many of the ladies were writers. they wrote books. >> they are in many cases quite frankly more interesting as human beings than their husband. if only because they are not first and foremost limited by political ambition. >> divas -- edith roosevelt is an unsung hero. when you go to the right house today, is really edith roosevelt white house. >> during this statement you are a little breathless and there was too much looking down, and i think it was a little too fast.

>> yes, ma'am. >> and i think in every case, the first lady has really done whatever bid her personality, and her interest. >> she later wrote in her memoir that she said i, myself, never made any decision. i only decided what was important and when to present it to my husband. now, you stop and think about how much power that is it's a lot of power. >> prior to the battle against cancer, is to fight the fear that accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way we look at these bugaboos, and made a possible for countless people to survive and to flourish as a result. >> i don't know how many

presidents realistically have that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the white house grounds, i am constantly reminded about all of the people who have lived there before and particularly all of the women. >> first ladies, includes an image, a c-span original series produced in cooperation with the white house historical association, season two premieres september 9 as we explore the modern era and first ladies from edith roosevelt to michelle obama. >> former cia and nsa director michael hayden said cybersecurity this will get worse before they get better. mr. hayden was among the speakers at an event on the left agree. the bipartisan policy center held in the event tuesday ahead of the release of the senate's recommendations of protecting the electric grid expected this

fall. >> good morning. if everybody would take a seat. i want to welcome everyone. i'm joe kruger, director at the bpc. and for those who don't know us, bpc was founded in 2007 by four former senate majority leaders, howard baker, tom daschle, bob dole and george mitchell. we like to say that we are bipartisan, not nonpartisan. we work with people who are strongly partisan from various parties by the belief that with good rigorous analysis, negotiation and respectful dialogue, you can actually come to agreement on policy issues for the good of the country. sounds crazy, right? but it's what we do. and i think it is needed now more than ever.

and cybersecurity really is the type of issue that really can and should be bipartisan. we will hear from our keynote speaker in a minute that the threats are real and we'l we wil hear that from a lot of the speakers today. and that the potential economic and human cos costs of a succesl cyber attack are potentially huge. so this workshop today is to sort of look at are we ready for all this? what's going on within the government and private sector? and what still needs to happen? is part of a broader initiative at bpc on cybersecurity that is a joint project between energy and homeland security project. our goal of this broader initiative is to develop recommendations for how multiple, sometimes overlapping government agencies plus private companies can protect the north american grid from potential cyberattacks. our friend that we're using here it is not a really technical

necessarily what should the specific topic you to protect their operations but is really the frame is governance, how to get organized to address these threats. so it's things like who was responsible for preventing attacks? what's the role of government? by government i'm in federal, state, local government, all of them have some jurisdiction over the grid in some cases. there are already mandatory standards on some parts of the electric grid. question is, are more standards needed? on the other approach is that we don't effective? s. the issues we're grappling with. also important, how do we share intelligence between the private sector and the government? how do we ensure why we do that their appropriate privacy protections? and if there is an attack and dignity of the speakers today will probably say it's not if, it's when there is a successful attack, how do we limit that? also, how do we respond, how do we get organized so we are prepared for that lex so our

overall initiatives i mentioned on cybersecurity is chaired by general hayden, co-chaired by general hayden who we'll hear from in a minute. we are also working with a good group of experts on cybersecurity and we expect to release a report with recommendations for policymakers in the fall. so stay tuned for that. i'm going to stop there. thank you again for coming. thank our partners in this, eei and naruc. one housekeeping thing, at the end of each session will have time for question. there are microphone stands set around the rims would ask you to come up and i'll introduce yourself to ask your question. so with that let me introduce my colleague, carie lemack was the director of bpc's homeland security program, and she'll introduce our keynote speaker. thank you.

>> good morning. well, i know you didn't all come here to listen to me some going to make this very short and sweet. my name is carie lemack, i'm the director of homeland security project at the bipartisan policy center. for those of you are not familiar with all metadata project, it is chaired by tom kean and lee hamilton for some you never as the co-chairs of the 9/11 commission. they have come together along with a group of 14 other experts to do their part to make sure that our country is keeping vigilant and remain ready to thwart any threats we face. cybersecurity is the a lot of people are talking about, but not a whol whole heck of a peope nose out of what to do about and that's why we're so thrilled to be working with the energy team at the bpc on this very important electric grid cybersecurity initiative. so today, we have general hayden is here to speak for us this morning. he is the co-chair of this initiative, along with curt

hebert who you will hear from later today. general hayden is a renowned expert on the issue of cybersecurity. he was the director of the cia and nsa. he is now a principal at the chertoff group. and he's going to spend a few minutes talking to us about the threat as he sees it and then we'll open it up for q&a as jonas mentions a we'll be happy to hear your thoughts, and i know he will give you some good answers. without further ado i want to introduce general hayden. [applause] >> well, good morning and thanks to have a chance to chat with you today. as carie suggested i will try to limit my transmission appeared about 20 minutes or so and then leave about 15 minutes for any questions or comments that you might have. as already suggested my purpose here is what my army buddies used to call the briefing with a big hand and the little map. i get to do the strategic

overview. what you following me our people far more expert than i in the specific definitions of the problem, and specific responses to the problems that i think we're all going to identify here today. folks in government, folks in industry, federal government, state and local government, think tanks who can come and perhaps begin to map out a way ahead that we certainly want to see reflected in our final report. so let me begin but as i said, they can't, little map, broad concepts and then as the day goes on we will burrow down into more specifics prefer to let me point out the obvious. is something is very important i think it is here to say. we kind of messed it up. i did that at a black hat conference about four summers ago in las vegas. i leaned forward, i'm in the ballroom at caesars palace with the 3000 reformed or

semi-reformed folks, kindly and into the darkness out there with the bright lights on and said look, as an american g.i. i see cyber as a domain. you know, land, sea, air, space, cyber. and i know who did these four, and, frankly, i think you did a reasonably good you do everything i know who did this one. and that is you, and the kind of leaned into the darkness and said, and i really do think you messed it up. and thankfully notes that get a rope. the response was kind of community, mild giggles. and we moved on, but we did, we did kind of screwed up. look back at history of this thing. we are lucky enough to know, to have the people who created this still among us. vince is living over there in great falls for example, invents comes to my classic george mitchell about once a year to talk to students about being out of stanford and starting to plug

things in and respond to the statement of work from our book, give me something that connects a limited number of labs and universities so i can move information quickly and easily. keep in mind what that statement of work was. quickly, easily, limited number of notes, all of whom i know, although my trust. and that remains the architecture of today's world wide web and that's why we're in this position we are in. it wasn't built to be protected. it made no -- no more sense to build defenses into the original concept than it would be for you and i to put a locked door between our kitchen and our dining room. the whole architecture of the house is designed to get the food from the kitchen to dining room while it still warm. why in god's name would you put a locked door between the two? that is kind of what we've built here except now rather than a limited number of nodes, it's

the end limited number of nodes. it's clear as i can put my liberal arts background, statement of the problem. let me go down one layer and talk about cyber sense in centers sense of our suggested it's a pretty tough neighborhood. three layers of sin. the first layer of sand, they are just stealing your stuff. bill lynn, former deputy secretary who wrote what i think is still the seminal article on an american thinking on the cyber domain, bill lynn pointed out that almost all the things we fret about out there and the web is in the range of stealing your stuff. it's cyber espionage, criminality, personal identifiable information to is your pin number. it's your credit card number. they are stealing your stuff. the second layer, and actually you will get the tone of this commentary here pretty soon, like things are getting worse, the second layer, and it's becoming more active is not just

stealing your stuff, all right, it's disrupting your network. i will throw out an example, estonia 2007 can remember page or a russian hackers crashing the estonia internet system because they were mad they were moving in a moral to the red army out to the suburbs. think patriotic russian hackers 2008, invasion of georgia bringing the georgian net to its knees. a net in which the georgian government were using for command and control. more current, more problematic, more personal for you and me, shamoon, a virus, saudi aramco, 35,000 hard drives, wiped clean. pick your enterprise ca, imagine yourself going back home where ever it is you work and imagine tomorrow 35,000 hard drives being wiped clean. you get the picture. and, frankly, although our government

i hate to use the term